[_ Old Earth _] String theory

[LadyAttis]

Good but I haven't seen any experimental evidence to validate quantum evolution.

DNA has been shown to behave (note, it's important to say behave because as of this moment we cannot say that it is one) as a "quantum mechanical biowave computer". You can read the paper here: http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc

The underline is mine. Ever read of Lloyd's Canon? Now it's a psychology axiom but it works great for this issue right now. Just because something eems 'intelligent' or acts in what we think to be complex doesn't infer a complex internal process.

Actually I'm not digging too deep. Because nuclear forces cannot be applied like QED can be applied to objects at our scale. And scale is the issue. icon_smile.gif

Not really, because your main argument was about how things don't fall apart because of electron bonds, and that is on the same scale as the nuclear forces. In fact, electrons would not be able to form those bonds if it weren't for the nuclear forces.

Actually electron bonds aren't on the same scale as nuclear bonds. I remember a classic example of the internal workings of an atom. If we could freeze an atom and blow it up to the size of a stadium + parking lot of the stadium. Then we would have the electrons buzzing around the parking lot and the nucleus would be the size of a grapefruit on the 50 yard line. That should give light that electron bonds are not on the same scales are nuclear bonds which is why we don't see electrons bonding to nucleus'. :roll:

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:07 am Post subject:
Course I'm a proponent of holographic principle of physics, personally. It would explain what we have a discrete spacetime but at the same time localized systems that seem continious. icon_smile.gif

Yes, I am quite fond of the holographic principle myself...however, I'm not willing to accept the current form, as it relies on M-theory. I do believe, however, that there is another form of the holographic principle that is true. It does not quite explain why space is discrete however.

Actually Holographic Principle isn't reliant on M-theory what-so-ever. In fact it's stated as an alternative to M-Theory. :-P In some versions of Holographic Principle you got an anti-disitter[sp?] space. O_o Which is a bit weird personally.

-- Bridget

 

[LadyAttis]

Also using Dot Com websites shouldn't be allowed in a debate. Dot Coms Orgs are not peer reviewed sites. I prefer sources from infotrac. If you got a local U just sneak to the library[they usually will let you get an ID for free or cheap to use the library] and print off a few stuffs from Wilson Web or Infotrac.

-- Bridget

 

[keebs]

The underline is mine. Ever read of Lloyd's Canon? Now it's a psychology axiom but it works great for this issue right now. Just because something eems 'intelligent' or acts in what we think to be complex doesn't infer a complex internal process.

I was just pointing out that there is justification for the development of quantum evolution, but we have to wait a little longer for true evidence, as it is relatively new.

Actually electron bonds aren't on the same scale as nuclear bonds. I remember a classic example of the internal workings of an atom. If we could freeze an atom and blow it up to the size of a stadium + parking lot of the stadium. Then we would have the electrons buzzing around the parking lot and the nucleus would be the size of a grapefruit on the 50 yard line. That should give light that electron bonds are not on the same scales are nuclear bonds which is why we don't see electrons bonding to nucleus'. icon_rolleyes.gif

Don't you understand that the only reason the electrons are capable of orbiting the atoms is because of nuclear forces? They are on the same scale.

Actually Holographic Principle isn't reliant on M-theory what-so-ever. In fact it's stated as an alternative to M-Theory. icon_razz.gif In some versions of Holographic Principle you got an anti-disitter[sp?] space. O_o Which is a bit weird personally.

Actually, the current form of the holographic principle is formulated in terms of M-theory. The only concrete example of a universe reliant on the holographic principle is formulated in a anti-de Sitter space using superstring theory. Look it up if you don't believe me.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:14 am Post subject:
Also using Dot Com websites shouldn't be allowed in a debate. Dot Coms Orgs are not peer reviewed sites. I prefer sources from infotrac. If you got a local U just sneak to the library[they usually will let you get an ID for free or cheap to use the library] and print off a few stuffs from Wilson Web or Infotrac. icon_smile.gif

The only Dot Com site I used was a link to a quantum biology site, and to a site hosting the quantum mechanical biowave paper. Everything else was arxiv, and the site for the biowave computer paper only hosted the paper, you could just as easily go to the Russian Academy of Sciences website and get the paper. As for infotrac, I've never used it (not too much demand for it in high school, and not I've never had to look anything up for the classes I take at the college).

 

[LadyAttis]

Yea try Infotrac you'll get more peer reviewed papers. The reasons why I bring that up is because I use to think Dot Com and unreviewed papers were reviewed until I did a bit of research on the issue. As for electron bonds again. They're not contigent on nuclear bonds. Hydrogen atoms have no nuclear bonds only quantum chromodynamic bonds[quarks keeping the proton together]. You can't calculate nuclear bonds in an hydrogen atom cept maybe hydrogen isotopes. All in all my point still stands since I use the example of hydrogens. Also Artifical Atoms which have been experimentlly generated[they're atoms with no nucleus]. With the issue of artifical atoms that really presents why nucleus' are required to make an non-artifical atom a viable molecule-building-block is that nuclear bonds themselves simply that one little particle called a proton also has an electrical charge which makes it a dual purpose particle[one nuclear and other electrical, that's where we get ELECTRO-WEAK FORCE]. :P

-- Bridget

 

[Blazin Bones]

Maybe a Christianity and Science Forum is not a bad idea at all.

If you are serious about wanting the Christianity and/or Science forum go to the suggestion box and speak up about. I've made the suggetion but It will need your support. 8-)

 

[LadyAttis]

Just make a general science forum. Some Christians that happen[ed] to be scientists would totally disagree that Christianity is in opposition of science.

-- Bridget

 

[keebs]

They're not contigent on nuclear bonds. Hydrogen atoms have no nuclear bonds only quantum chromodynamic bonds

QCD is a theory of the strong nuclear force.

As for the science forums...I'd love it!

 

[LadyAttis]

Um no QCD only applies to quarks. :P

Nuclear[strong] force is the bonds between gluons that are transmitted by each subatomic particle. Please read the basics on the Four forces in Physics, PLEASE.

-- Bridget

 

[Blazin Bones]

Well then state your opinion in the suggestion box.

 

[keebs]

Um no QCD only applies to quarks.

Um, no. QCD is the field theory for the strong nuclear force. Once again, look it up if you don't believe me. In fact, the exchange particle of QCD are the gluons. "Please read the basics on the four forces in Physics, PLEASE."

But, you are partially right in that QCD applies to quarks.